Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41665906›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Patient Preferences for In-Person vs Remote Care for Long-Term Conditions.

Tiphaine Lenfant, Elodie Perrodeau, Philippe Ravaud, Viet-Thi Tran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tiphaine LenfantCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut National de la Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement, Paris, France.
Elodie PerrodeauCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut National de la Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut National de la Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement, Paris, France.
Viet-Thi TranCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut National de la Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: As health care systems face greater strain due to the increasing prevalence of long-term conditions (LTCs) and workforce shortages, optimizing remote care could help maintain access to timely follow-up care while alleviating pressure on in-person services. Objectives: To assess the availability and use of 3 remote modalities by patients with LTCs for interacting with their referring physician; their preference for in-person vs remote consultation for different situations; and their willingness to trade an in-person consultation with their referring physician in 20 days for an earlier remote consultation with a nonreferring physician. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted from April 1 to August 28, 2024, in France. Adult patients with at least 1 LTC participating in a nationwide e-cohort were recruited to complete an online survey. To obtain estimates representative of patients with LTCs in France, analyses were performed on a weighted dataset with calibration on margins from the 2021 Santé Publique France Survey. Exposures: Each patient was presented with 1 of 5 randomly assigned situations regarding worsening symptoms, new symptoms, annual checkup, medication renewal, and results discussion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Responses were assessed for (1) availability and use of remote modalities (video consultation, telephone contact, and asynchronous message exchange) for interacting with the referring physician; (2) patient preference for in-person or remote modalities when interacting with the referring physician depending on the situation; and (3) patient willingness to trade an in-person consultation with their physician in 20 days for an earlier direct-to-consumer (DTC) remote consultation with a nonreferring physician. Results: Among 1995 participants (mean [SD] age, 55 [17] years; 56% women), 47% reported that no remote modalities for communicating with their referring physician were available. (All percentages presented are weighted.) Up to 55% preferred remote over in-person consultation to interact with their referring physician, with higher proportions for results discussion (43%) and medication renewal (55%) than for worsening symptoms (36%), new symptoms (25%), and annual checkup (26%). Up to 51% of patients were willing to trade an in-person consultation with their referring physician in 20 days for a DTC remote consultation within 5 days with a nonreferring physician. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study showed that patients with LTCs had limited access to remote modalities to interact with their referring physician for follow-up care, and patients considered replacing an in-person with a remote consultation even with another physician depending on the situation and the length of delay. Further research is needed to investigate the effective integration of remote care into the health care system in ways that maintain patient-centered care and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Long-Term CarePatient PreferenceRemote ConsultationTelemedicineAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41665906
PMCPMC12892154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.